ASCAP Members Pissed Off At ASCAP's Attack On Creative Commons

from the fundraising-for-whom? dept

Last week, we posted about how ASCAP was attacking EFF, Public Knowledge and (most bizarre of all) Creative Commons, as part of its fundraising drive. As we pointed out, this showed ASCAP's true colors. For an organization that presents itself as trying to supports artists' rights, it's downright ridiculous to attack a group like Creative Commons that only looks to give musicians more choices in what they do with their own rights. In following some of the reaction to the article, I saw a tweet from musician Eric Young, where he publicly declared plans to quit ASCAP over this fundraising appeal:

#FUCKASCAP #iQuit ... this is the 1st public anncmnt of my resignation from ASCAP. this is bullshit.

That left me wondering how other ASCAP members were feeling about this, and thankfully, Slashdot points us to a blog post on the Mind the Gap blog that discusses this issue (towards the end). In the comments, though, a number of ASCAP members express their displeasure with the organization.

I think ASCAP should be ashamed of itself, and I am presently ashamed to be a card-carrying member of ASCAP. The language in that fundraising email is fear-based and reactionary. Furthermore, it is misleading and disingenuous. ASCAP portrays itself as a grassroots organization and calls attention to the "deep pockets" of Creative Commons, but in fact it is *ASCAP*, not Creative Commons, that's siding with corporate interests and "deep pockets."

I got this letter yesterday; and all I could think was even if it was true, it wouldn't affect me -- seeing as how several songs I co-wrote have been airing regularly for over 2 years on TV (kid's show stuff, so I do mean regularly), yet I haven't seen a penny through ASCAP. I think they should worry about their own mission statement and get creators actually PAID.

And if I was actually getting my royalties, I would still think the letter was ridiculous and fear-mongering. But what else are they going to do -- let everyone know there's an issue that people need to thoughtfully and sensibly make up their own minds on? Of course not.

I'm a card-carrying member of ASCAP as well. At least, i was until i got their message. I'm disaffiliating myself as soon as i can figure out how. This is ingenuous at best, and an insult to anyone with even the remotest modicum of understanding of modern digital content distribution. It shows only how antiquated this whole entire game is.

ASCAP should change their moniker to ASSHAT: American Society of Socially-Harmful Attorneys and Treasurers.

Someone going by the name Bobkat who is a member of ASCAP admits that he generally likes ASCAP protecting his rights, but is disgusted with the tone of the letter and now very conflicted over how he feels about ASCAP:

I'm also a member of ASCAP, and I was digusted by the tone of the letter. I hold Creative Commons and the EFF in high regard, and painting them as some kind of enemy of musicians is ridiculous. As a musician, I don't feel like a small-time individual has many options; I have a pretty broad idea of fair use, myself, but if Kanye sampled my song and made millions off of it then damn right I would want a piece. Without the resources to hire a lawyer, who else but ASCAP could help me get my share? Yet at the same time, I don't completely trust that they're really always protecting my best interests; and in this case I believe they have amply demonstrated how clumsy and old-fashioned their philosophy is. What a crummy situation.

I'm a longtime member of both ASCAP and EFF, and I find the whole situation painful.

ASCAP's broadcast and international royalty collections are poor (former is a lottery, latter is unenthusiastic) but their domestic performance royalties are good and appropriately scaled. I appreciate that, and also appreciate that their staff is actually fairly small.

That said, I have to say I'm always disappointed by ASCAP's rough behavior (even if they're not nearly as awful as the RIAA). Maybe it's a negotiating stance, but it just tastes bad....

....

I attended one of the first ASCAP committee meetings about internet music use back in 1995 (where I met folks such as Laurie Spiegel and Morton Subotnik for the first time). I suspect that the composers in attendance 15 years ago are disappointed if not disgusted by the bullying position ASCAP has been taking (revealed as much in the "Daily Briefing" emails they send out as in the recent letter).

So I hope ASCAP will rethink its position and arrive at a truly creative solution that acknowledges how culture (to which they're nominally allied) functions as opposed to a hard-line interpretation of the law. This is no easy task, as Congress has been doing the bidding of the real deep pockets in the past few decades.

Meanwhile, there were some similar comments found on the BoingBoing article on ASCAP's letter as well. For example, there is this comment from the musician Kemmler who posted the email he sent back upon getting ASCAP's fundraising pitch:

Dear Mr. Williams -

I'm not interested in supporting any initiative based on this sort of information-free screed. I've personally relied on creative-commons licensed materials to use in my own work, as well as a license which provides a convenient way to both promote and control the dissemination of my own work.

I also have a firm respect for the EFF and their efforts in protecting the interests of consumers and small business where they pertain to new media channels, the internet, or IP.

As a musician, and as an entrepreneur making my living selling equipment to studios and musicians, I obviously have a great deal to lose if the putative forces of "copyleft" somehow succeed in preventing music being paid for. However, I cannot condone, or fail to decry the practice of vilifying institutions like Creative Commons, which poses absolutely no conceivable illegitimate threat to ASCAP or its members.

If someone wants to license their materials under a CC license - that's their right. If someone wants to use CC-licensed material, and not pay ASCAP for some other material - that's also their right. Please grow up and get a grip.

Similar to some of the conflicted artists above, someone going by the name "BrooklynTwang" who appears to be the musician Rench posted a comment about how he supports ASCAP and what it does, but hates this fundraising campaign:

I am an ASCAP member. I hate this fundraising letter and I am telling them so.

Just FYI though regarding the ASCAP-is-corporate-assholes talk, I am not a rich rockstar but I make money licensing music for film, tv, and commercials. I am happy to give music away free to the public, but if some corporation is going to use it to sell crap, they should pay me. Not just the up front fee, but royalties for each time they run the ad/show/film. ASCAP makes them do that so they don't get away with shortchanging artists like me. Thats one thing that ASCAP does, and thats why I am a member. ASCAP is not just another corporation. They are a player in a complex position between artists and corporations. They are not the bad guys, they are just not as good as they should be these days. Next time we vote on the ASCAP board members I will grill the nominees about this.

That's not all either, but a quick sampling. I'm sure that this won't have a noticeable impact on ASCAP, which has 380,000 members, most of whom probably don't know or don't care much about the details of what it is ASCAP is misleadingly attacking. But ASCAP might want to be careful before continuing to attack organizations that actually do have musicians' best interests in mind. They might find that more and more will start to question ASCAP's motives as well. In the end, I doubt there was anything malicious in ASCAP's fundraising letter. It's just that the organization is so far out of touch with what's happening in the music world today that it actually thinks attacking these groups makes sense.

Re:

380,000 member, there are sure to be a few upset. the people you linked in the article dont appear to be major stars or anything like that. do they have anything to lose by quitting? or are they just people who joined with the intention to quit one day publicly to hope to get some coverage?

Re:

"or are they just people who joined with the intention to quit one day publicly to hope to get some coverage?"

You are an idiot. Yes, it's all one big conspiracy, people joined ASCAP for the purpose of quitting one day to make a statement. Seriously? and I'm sure they wanted to pay the $35 fee to ASCAP for the point of making a point too? They want to help ASCAP financially for the purpose of making a point by quitting. How can anyone take anything you say seriously?

Re: Re: Re:

The $35 is going to ASCAP. Heck, if you're right then I can start an organization where people give me $35 each to quit the organization for the sake of making me look foolish I would do it. I'll be rich and I can use that money to further advance my endeavors. Seriously, you are being an idiot. It would be much wiser to give that $35 to Public knowledge or the EFF or some other organization that will use it to better make ASCAP look like a fool or to start an organization and collect $35 from people to write bad press about them that makes them look like a fool. Besides, ASCAP does a good job making themselves look like fools regardless. After all, the whole purpose of the letter is for ASCAP to collect money, if people gave ASCAP money to quit then that serves the purpose of what ASCAP is trying to do. ASCAP wants to collect money for a reason, because it helps further their cause, so giving them money is not in the interest of those who don't like ASCAP. But you knew that, you're just trolling.

Re: Re:

After multiple decades in this business I have learned to never assume anyone is a nothing wannabe just because you don't know their name.

Believe it or not, there are musicians and songwriters you've never heard of who make huge money through the royalties generated by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Just because they're not the flavor of the week tabloid fodder don't assume that these guys are just ambitious nobodies.

My business partner for many years was responsible for breaking some of Britian's hottest acts in the USA and no one knows him by name.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

again, you are assuming that they have anything to collect, and have done anything that will require collections in the future. having a membership in asacp is not indication that you have done anything that merits protection or collection.

again, you failed critical thinking, assuming that the people listed here are anything other that pissed off bar band members.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I understand now, that you don't bother to read anything other than the title of the post.

Allow me to *show* you why I am not assuming what you assume I have assumed:

We've been fighting with ASCAP for 6 years to get the money they received for selling the rights to several of his early recordings to a overseas company.

****

seeing as how several songs I co-wrote have been airing regularly for over 2 years on TV (kid's show stuff, so I do mean regularly)

****

As a musician, I don't feel like a small-time individual has many options; I have a pretty broad idea of fair use, myself, but if Kanye sampled my song and made millions off of it then damn right I would want a piece. Without the resources to hire a lawyer, who else but ASCAP could help me get my share?

****

As a musician, and as an entrepreneur making my living selling equipment to studios and musicians, I obviously have a great deal to lose if the putative forces of "copyleft" somehow succeed in preventing music being paid for.

I would also like to point out that even "bar bands" can make a popular song that "will require collections in the future". Many musicians start out in a bar (or garage, even!) and go on to "make it".

Is this some corollary to Masnick's law? If an ASCAP member dares disagree with ASCAP then they will forever be doomed to musical obscurity? Can you not come up with anything more worthwhile?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

" if Kanye sampled my song and made millions off of it then damn right I would want a piece." - it does not say that any sampling occured, just that he would want money if it happened.

"As a musician, and as an entrepreneur making my living selling equipment to studios and musicians, " - someone who sells equipment, not music. asacp would own him nothing (but his clients would not get paid and he would not sell equipment, different story)

"I would also like to point out that even "bar bands" can make a popular song that "will require collections in the future". Many musicians start out in a bar (or garage, even!) and go on to "make it". " - yes, but my point is this: if they are owned little or nothing at this point, quitting the organization (and potentially rejoining later) would not change anything, but would give them something to grandstand about. i think that most of the people here busy venting on twitter are just that, people with nothing to lose, and everything to gain looking like they are sticking it to the man.

Re:

Re:

380,000 member, there are sure to be a few upset. the people you linked in the article dont appear to be major stars or anything like that. do they have anything to lose by quitting? or are they just people who joined with the intention to quit one day publicly to hope to get some coverage?

I was wondering just how you were going to come up with an opposing comment on this one. I thought you might have come up with something better than this - but maybe a better strategy would have been just to leave this one alone. After all ASCAP are being pretty stupid and nasty - really not a good idea to try and defend them.

Re: Re:

Re: Bad Member!

the people you linked in the article dont appear to be major stars or anything like that. do they have anything to lose by quitting?

Well, since they paid to become members, they must have believed they had something to gain by joining.

Are you implying they're wrong, and should never have joined in the first place? That the only people who benefit from ASCAP membership are "major stars," and everyone else has been suckered into paying money for a pipe dream?

I don't disagree, I'm just asking if that's actually your opinion. If it's not, then it doesn't matter if they're "major stars" or not.

or are they just people who joined with the intention to quit one day publicly to hope to get some coverage?

Are you seriously suggesting they voluntarily gave money to an organization they don't support, merely for the chance to make a negative post about them on a message board or two?

Right.

Maybe we should hear from all those ASCAP musicians that actively support outlawing Creative Commons. Know of any? I don't.

Re:

Right. Saboteurs, spies and terrorists the lot of them! Those creative commons people are pure EVIL. They've been infiltrating the cool people of ASCAP in hopes to smear them and destroy them from the inside! ASCAP and the *AAs aren't bad, it's these evil organizations that have been undermining their reputation all along!

Whoa, what?

"In the end, I doubt there was anything malicious in ASCAP's fundraising letter."

Wait a second....what? Are you kidding? Or is this statement just an attempt to sound understanding and reasonable. The tone of that letter was the same as the garbage we hear from government about our supposed "enemies" who really just did something we don't like. They basically declared two great organizations, the EFF and Creative Commons, to be bad for artists and society as a whole. How are you missing the malicious part of that?

More importantly, in my years working for a few different companies, I've learned that there are two types of businesses on the planet:

1. Companies that are looking for every opportunity and angle to make money, thereby increasing their profits

2. Companies that are looking for every opportunity and angle to help their clients, knowing that in the end, this will lead to increasing profits

The difference is subtle, but of massive importance. If ASCAP actually cultivated their diminishing reputation as an artist's rights group, instead of looking to attack CC and the EFF in a misguided attempt to gain more members or whatever they're trying to do, they would probably actually see the increase they were looking for in the first place. They went the malicious route. To minimize that...wow, I just don't know, it's almost like someone else wrote that sentence....

Re: Whoa, what?

Re: Re: Whoa, what?

Er, no I'm not. Malice is the "desire to see others harmed or suffer". Examples from their letter:

"I am urging you to support ASCAP's Legislative Fund for the Arts." - Shows their intent to react to CC and the EFF by lobbying for legislation that would go against them.

"...but the truth is these groups (including EFF and CC) simly do not want to pay for the use of our music." - Not only malicious in that they are trying to undermine the EFF and CC, but it's not even logical. It's a lie. CC has nothing to do with not paying ASCAP for the use of music. It's just silly. And Malicious....

"We are asking you to make a very small contribution to wage this battle..." - Ah, the language of war, nothing malicious about that....

Re: Re: Re: Whoa, what?

Malice is the desire to see others harmed as an end in and of itself. Selfishness is the desire to acquire more money/power/resources/things/fame/notoriety/credibility/Good publicity/blah with no regard for how your behavior affects others. I don't think ASCAP is malicious, just selfish. They don't care about anyone but themselves, they don't want to hurt others just for the sake of hurting others, but they don't care if their behavior to serve their self serving purposes do hurt others.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Whoa, what?

Hm, interesting, but I don't agree. They basically declared war on groups that are inarguably not directly attacking them. That seems to fit with the definition of malice:

malice [ˈmælɪs]
n
1. the desire to do harm or mischief
2. evil intent
3. (Law) Law the state of mind with which an act is committed and from which the intent to do wrong may be inferred See also malice aforethought

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whoa, what?

They are attacking those groups because those groups ultimately pose a threat to ASCAP's profits, not because they want to attack those groups for the sake of attacking them. Their behavior is selfish.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whoa, what?

"In most drinking waters, over 95% of total fluoride is the F− ion, with the magnesium–fluoride complex (MgF+) being the next most common."

Ions make water electrically conductive. So a good analog ohm meter should detect it.

However, the fluoride concentration in water are so small it might not?

"Pitcher or faucet-mounted water filters do not alter fluoride; the more-expensive reverse osmosis filters remove 65–95% of fluoride, and distillation filters remove all fluoride."

(same article).

Usually when you go to the stores to fill up water and you see those huge round things that's reverse osmosis. The problem with reverse osmosis and especially distillation is that it also removes a lot of useful minerals from the water.

Re: Re: Re: Whoa, what?

ehh... I don't know.

I can't help but see the letter and its underlying reasons for this "battle" they want funding to wage as more of a "fight or flight" reaction than any type of malicious endeavor.

That explains why, as you noted, it isn't logical, and a bit silly. As is the theme for everything IP related, if anything causes them to *not* make money, then it should be eliminated. Since the EFF is strongly in the Fair Use camp and in a twisted way CC does compete with ASCAP, both make excellent kneejerk reaction targets.

The Infamous Joe sez: I would also like to point out that even "bar bands" can make a popular song that "will require collections in the future". Many musicians start out in a bar (or garage, even!) and go on to "make it".
Yes indeedy. Like those four lads from Liverpool for instance.
We can pretty much ignore what ASCAP, RIAA and even ASSHAT have to say on the subject. A Creative Commons license is, contractually speaking, perfectly legal.
For the performing and/or recording musicians out there, just continue doing what you think is right and trust your fans to show you some love. If you have fans, they will show you some love.
For the folks who write songs for others, I acknowledge that it's a bit tougher situation, but thinking creatively (err... pun semi-intended) will get you into the same situation.
In fine, let the dinosaurs sink happily into the tar pit. Pretty soon we won't even be able to hear their roars of panic.

Ha Ha

You can't just quit ASCAP. If you have registered works under ASCAP you will probably need to remain with them to receive your royalties. Whoever suggested that people join and then quit as a protest knows nothing about how collection societies work.

Re:

It was stupid of ASCAP to go after Creative Commons, which is, despite its surrounding culture, perfectly legitimate.

EFF on the other hand is hardly the neutral entity it's made out to be with its long history of shilling for Silicon Valley freeloaders. It's more of a friend to the Googles and Groksters of the world than it is to musicians or any other content creator.

Re:

EFF on the other hand is hardly the neutral entity it's made out to be with its long history of shilling for Silicon Valley freeloaders. It's more of a friend to the Googles and Groksters of the world than it is to musicians or any other content creator.

If you believe that, then I certainly hope you're not in the entertainment business, because you're missing the boat by such a wide margin.

Re: Re:

It's not a matter of belief at all. And if you think anyone in the film industry (at least) sees a friend in the EFF, you're out of your mind. Fred Lohmann, with his previous ties to Limewire and Grokster has now found a home with Google. What a surprise.

Re: Re: Re:

And if you think anyone in the film industry (at least) sees a friend in the EFF, you're out of your mind. Fred Lohmann, with his previous ties to Limewire and Grokster has now found a home with Google. What a surprise.

Funny. I know plenty of filmmakers who are EFF supporters.

Fred von Lohmann (apparently you're so out of touch you don't even know the guy's name) is a well respected copyright lawyer on these issues. I'm not sure what the fact that he's done stuff with those three companies has to do with anything. The fact that you automatically think it's a negative to have done work with those three companies suggests, again, that you are so lost that you are drowning.

No wonder your business models are failing. Kinda sad that you're lashing out at those who are offering you the solutions, though. Typical. But sad.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"No wonder your business models are failing. Kinda sad that you're lashing out at those who are offering you the solutions, though. Typical. But sad."

A couple days ago I said ...

I find it pretty amazing the way these people group together, are totally inflexable, attack anyone with a discenting voice, go into rages or walk away in denial when anyone questions their belief system.

This persons post is a perfect example of it. It also shows he is seeing conspiracies, one of the problems with having a closed social group.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"A couple days ago I said ...I find it pretty amazing the way these people group together, are totally inflexable, attack anyone with a discenting voice, go into rages or walk away in denial when anyone questions their belief system."

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Funny. I know plenty of filmmakers who are EFF supporters.

People who post youtube cat videos might support the EFF, I'll grant you that but you don't know any filmmakers with a DGA, WGA, SAG or PGA card in their wallet that supports them. If you do, I invite you to name them or point to where such acknowledgment was made.

I'm not sure what the fact that he's done stuff with those three companies has to do with anything.

You're not sure why his long history of defending commercial piracy companies like Grokster and Limewire is relevant? Seriously? Do you realize how often you've posted about this same sort of scenario? Here for instance, is one of the many examples: http://techdirt.com/articles/20090814/1256505886.shtml

"...isn't a huge surprise, given the fact that the Justice Department is stocked with former lawyers for the entertainment industry..." - you

Enjoy your hypocrisy.

Kinda sad that you're lashing out at those who are offering you the solutions, though. Typical. But sad.

Solutions for aggregators, pirates, hobbyists, derivative sub-artists and counterfeiters, sure. Professional content creators on the other hand? Nothing but fairy dust and utopian theories extrapolated far beyond any semblance of reason.

No wonder your business models have yet to prove themselves viable anywhere but in the software business and even there, not entirely. Kinda sad that you're lashing out at those are offering you a dose of reality, though. Typical. But sad.

First the "ringtones are a public performance! PAY US MONEY!!!" BS and now this. I think ASCAP has been infiltrated by some big player affiliates and is having its original purpose phased out for the corporate propaganda regime that is currently trying to destroy creativity and freedom.

ASCAP vs. EFF and Creative Commons

I am an ASCAP member, recently joined, and received ASCAP's blast against EFF and Creative Commons. Here's my reply, sent to ASCAP's president.

> At this moment, we are facing our biggest challenge ever.
> Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge,
> Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies
> with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote "Copyleft"
> in order to undermine our "Copyright." They say they are
> advocates of consumer rights, but the truth is these
> groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our
> music. Their mission is to spread the word that our
> music should be free.

I am an ASCAP member and also a supporter of Creative Commons, and a contributor and member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The above statement is false and totally misleading, and ASCAP should know better than to propagate this kind of crap. Creative Commons provides a license whereby authors and creative artists can distribute their work for free with the assurance the that license is legally solid and their work can't be appropriated by others who would attempt to charge for it. People license their works under a Creative Commons license VOLUNTARILY. In no way does this represent an effort to circumvent existing copyrights and licenses.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a legal watchdog organization, providing legal support for consumers and organizations in a digital world much as the American Civil Liberties Union provides similar services for the non-digital world. I FULLY support EFF's work and have been a member and contributor to EFF's efforts. If ASCAP has a legal beef with EFF, perhaps ASCAP should keep it in the courts and not go spreading lies such as these to their members.

In my humble opinion, ASCAP owes some big time apologies. This kind of BS inclines me to sever my new relationship with ASCAP and join instead with a more honest and progressive performance rights organization.

Needless to say, I will NOT be contributing to the ASCAP Legislative Fund for the Arts!